Chapter 9.docx

Overview of Work and Nonwork Role Theory and Dynamics Work and nonwork role dynamics are deeply intertwined with nearly all WHSWB concerns. This is because everything workers perceive, appraise, and do happens within the context of one or more roles. This reality makes role dynamics a prime target f...

Overview of Work and Nonwork Role Theory and Dynamics Work and nonwork role dynamics are deeply intertwined with nearly all WHSWB concerns. This is because everything workers perceive, appraise, and do happens within the context of one or more roles. This reality makes role dynamics a prime target for the development and application of models, theories, and interventions to understand and shape worker behavior. There are many different models and perspectives guiding work in this area of OHP. Regardless of which perspective is taken, all workers manage demands and resources associated with at least two general life role domains: work and nonwork. The dynamics associated with how we manage these roles are complex and constitute a very rich area of OHP research and practice that considers many personal, social, and environmental factors (e.g., Allen et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2020). Most OHP-related work in this area focuses on work and family role dynamics, but the phenomena studied in this area of OHP are highly generalizable across different types of roles. For this reason, we have tried to be a bit more inclusive in this overview chapter by considering work and nonwork role domains as the two main subdivisions of our many life roles (cf., Grawitch et al., 2013). Roles influence workers’ behaviors, beliefs, preferences, and even attitudes. The complexity associated with roles is evident in the diversity of general role theories that have been developed and promoted since the early 1930s (see Biddle, 1986 for an insightful discussion of five main theories that have contributed to current thinking on work/nonwork role dynamics). As noted by Biddle (1986), the concept of a “role” within most role-related theories is a “theatrical metaphor” that enables us to make sense of how we are acting in specific social contexts. Along these lines, the most influential role theory impacting OHP research and practice is organizational role theory, which is commonly attributed to Kahn et al. (1964). This theory focuses on roles within organizational contexts, which are social systems that develop around clear objectives and generally include some degree of hierarchy of social position (see Biddle, 1986). Organizational role theory describes roles as being generated by normative expectations, which may vary among individuals and the various groups of others with whom interaction occurs within an organizational context. The same concept applies in our nonwork domains, where our norms and important others create expectations for our various other roles. The possibility of encountering and having to make sense of multiple sets of norms, in and outside of work, establishes the basis for role conflict (discussed later in this chapter), which can lead to role strain and ultimately negative consequences for the worker and organization if unaddressed. Roles often develop and are sustained, however, by more than behavioral norms. Consider how roles involving religious participation are more defined by shared beliefs and attitudes, than by behavioral expectations. Consider also roles we might occupy due to preference, such as hobbies or sports. Finally, some work and nonwork roles form more because of situational factors than from any norm or personal choice. For example, when adult children become caregivers for aging parents or other dependants, this type of role is not as normative in all countries and cultures today as it was in previous generations; instead it develops out of situational necessity. Across these examples, roles are contexts in which we actively respond to demands with the help of various resources. Role-Related Demands and Resources Intra- and interrole dynamics have been studied for decades, tracing back to early work on role theory (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1966). Extending from our discussions about demands and resources in the preceding chapters and the overarching focus on WHSWB throughout this book, intrarole dynamics refer to the ebb and flow of demands and resources, and their effects within a specific role. Interrole or role boundary dynamics are similar, but focus on how these phenomena may span multiple role domains and how workers manage transitions between these domains (Allen et al., 2014; French et al., 2019). Extending from our discussion of demands and resources in Chapters 6 and 7, nearly all life roles involve a never-ending ebb and flow of demands and resources. This is a helpful perspective when studying or helping workers to manage their work and nonwork role dynamics. Typically, this involves leveraging either Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) or Demerouti et al.’s (2001) Job Demands and Resources (JD-R) theories (e.g., Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Halbesleben et al., 2009). There are also some attempts to adapt these more general resource-based frameworks to something a bit more tailored to work and nonwork role contexts (e.g., work-home resources model; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Research in this area continues, but it is increasingly well-understood that certain resources have cross-domain relevance and can positively impact work attitudes and even work-related performance (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Such resources include support from one’s work supervisors (e.g., family supportive supervisor behaviors [FSSB]; Hammer et al., 2009), support from one’s organization more broadly (e.g., family supportive organizational perceptions [FSOP]; Allen, 2001), and scheduling flexibility (Baltes et al., 1999; Swanberg et al., 2011). Managing work and nonwork role demands and resources is typically seen as a personal challenge, so it is an area in which organizations are often reluctant to meddle. In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic thrust the challenges of managing, integrating, and balancing work and nonwork life into a particularly bright spotlight as workers all over the world were forced to simultaneously manage major changes across all their role domains (e.g., Dey et al., 2020). Organizations do not have the luxury of waiting for this major disturbance to pass and will have to coordinate with workers to establish new role-related expectations moving forward. Role Boundaries Understanding and helping workers to better manage work and nonwork role dynamics often requires clearly defining or differentiating roles. This is a natural part of how we all manage our various life roles, by establishing “edges”, borders, or boundaries to help us separate work from nonwork domains (e.g., Nippert-Eng, 1996). However, as major life events such as the COVID-19 pandemic remind us, our roles and the boundaries between them are subject to revision when social and environmental forces change. Understanding role boundaries helps us understand how different roles are likely to jointly influence one another. Role boundaries are commonly understood in OHP-related work in terms of their clarity, strength, and consistency. Boundary Clarity It is a simple, but important point to note that people respect and benefit from boundaries that are clearly marked. You know this if you (like Chris) have ever been hiking in a new area, and suddenly found yourself challenged by a shotgun-wielding, privacy-seeking individual whose property boundary you have unintentionally crossed. It is often very difficult for us to find or establish boundaries around some of our roles. As an example, Chris recently took over the responsibility of managing a rental property that is jointly owned by a large group of extended family members – Is this new role a family, work, or service role? Similarly, both of us are regularly involved in a variety of groups and roles associated with our churches – Are these social, personal, spiritual, or work-related roles? Trying to answer such questions is not simply an academic exercise. The ability to demarcate our roles with clear boundaries is an important element to effectively managing role-related demands and resources (e.g., Lobel, 1991) as well as how we transition between roles (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009). Boundary Strength In OHP research and practice, there is a tendency to conceptualize role boundary strength as ranging from fully open to cross-role transfer and integration of demand and resource experiences (weak) to completely separated or segmented (strong). The degree to which role boundaries are weak or strong is also linked to their flexibility (i.e., whether a role can be “occupied” and managed in a variety of times and places) and permeability (i.e., whether a role permits a workers to engage psychologically and behaviorally in meeting demands of another role, while the first role is occupied; e.g., Capitano & Greenhaus, 2018; Clark, 2000). Boundary strength can vary within and between persons due to personal, situational, and occupational factors. For instance, a nurse cannot continue patient care (i.e., their work role) when not at a medical facility (though they may continue thinking about their work). In contrast, a professor can easily continue responding to student emails or working on projects from home, but perhaps not while engaging in other nonwork roles (e.g., attending a religious service, coaching a youth sports team). Some research suggests that stronger role boundaries are associated with better work-life balance, especially for older adults (Spieler et al., 2018). However, while permeability is associated with higher levels of interrole conflict (Bulger et al., 2007; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006), it may also be associated with opportunities for interrole enhancement or facilitation (e.g., Bulger et al., 2007). Other studies show that perceived role flexibility (associated with weaker boundary strength) may be associated with less interrole conflict (Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, 2010) and greater work and family/nonwork role enhancement (Bulger et al., 2007). A key resource that can help explain these inconsistencies is the presence or absence of control: Workers are likely to benefit most when they can choose how permeable their boundaries are (and when they are permeable) versus having a certain degree of permeability forced on them (e.g., work email being blocked during “nonwork hours”). Boundary Consistency and Symmetry Closely related to boundary permeability and flexibility is the extent to which role boundaries vary in terms of their consistency and symmetry (Allen et al., 2014). This is most apparent in OHP work that examines the often-imbalanced directionality of work versus nonwork role-related demands. This issue of consistency is also evident in work that has explored how certain qualities of our personal role boundaries may change or fluctuate over time. Specifically, workers’ strategies for managing role dynamics may change over time as various factors influence the extent to which they identify most strongly with work or nonwork roles. Of particular relevance here is workers’ identity prominence and salience, which are typically operationalized in a way that helps us understand the extent to which a person identifies with a particular role, making it central or most salient in their lives (Brenner et al., 2014; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). Individuals with strong work identity salience place a stronger emphasis and value on their work-related role obligations. As a result, these individuals may maintain a less flexible and permeable work than nonwork boundary and be open to interruptions from work when at home, compared to individuals who identify more strongly with their nonwork roles (cf., Kossek et al., 2012). It is interesting to consider whether and how changes to our identities over time may also lead to shifts in role boundary consistency and symmetry needs. Interrole Transitions and Dynamics Appreciating that our various life roles have boundaries, we must also remember that we rarely find ourselves managing the demands and resources of only one role at a time. For example, while reading this book in your role as a student, you may also be interrupted or distracted because of your role as someone’s significant other or parent, and even have to pause your reading to address competing demands from another role domain. Multiple roles can even combine within a single role domain. Consider a recently promoted mid-level manager who still has individual contributor responsibilities, but now also must facilitate subordinates’ success. This person may still have friendships with coworkers who are now subordinates or supervisor-level peers. Now, managing multiple role relationships and demands contributes to the typical work demands this individual must manage. There is no map or physical boundary that helps us know when we need to switch from being someone and doing something in one role to a different domain. This was evident in early theorizing about within-domain transitions at work (e.g., Nicholson, 1984) and is evident in our current understanding that workers manage intra- and interrole transitions using a variety of physical, behavioral, and psychological strategies (Allen et al., 2014; Kreiner et al., 2009; Sturges, 2012). For example, many workers facilitate their transition between work and home through participation in some sort of buffering activity, such as a commute (Clark et al., 2019; Redmond & Mokhtarian, 2001; van Hooff, 2015). Our experiences in one role have a variety of direct and indirect impacts on what we are able to do, how we do it, and what we ultimately experience in other roles. There are at least eight models that help to explain the ways in which our experiences in one role may influence our experiences in another. As summarized in Table 9.1, the first three of these models are considered non-causal and are meant mainly as conceptual or explanatory aids of how roles are generally related. The other models are more causal, as they explain mechanisms or ways in which a set of experiences or demands in one role can affect a person in another role. As these various models suggest, there is some diversity of perspective among OHP professionals when it comes to how we understand and intervene to help workers manage role dynamics. Most OHP attention has focused on conflict or interference between work and family/nonwork roles, where it comes from, and how it develops (e.g., Allen et al., 2020). There is also growing recognition that spillover and compensation does not necessarily have to be negative, and that there are situations where involvement in one role leads to resource gains that can be useful in other roles (i.e., interrole facilitation or enhancement; e.g., Hill et al., 2007; Sieber, 1974). The discussion in the rest of this subsection elaborates on three broad and commonly examined forms of interrole dynamics: conflict, facilitation, and balance. Conflict Workers can experience conflict or interference within and between work and nonwork roles. Such conflict tends to develop when workers experience “two or more incompatible expectations” for their behavior (Biddle, 1986, p. 82). This is especially common when demands or pressures of one role cannot be readily managed amidst demands and pressures from other roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964). This can also happen when there is poor alignment or fit between worker abilities and values, and what the organization demands or values (Bogaerts et al., 2018; Kreiner, 2006). Within a role, conflict is especially likely to be experienced by workers who perceive high levels of ambiguity about their role expectations and requirements (i.e., role ambiguity; e.g., King & King, 1990; Rizzo et al., 1970). Some instances of interrole conflict may be more accurately labeled role overload (i.e., responding to heavy demands in a role hinders a worker’s ability to address all role-related duties; e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Kahn et al., 1964) or role interference (i.e., when multiple roles require simultanous involvement, which impairs one’s ability to meet the demands of either role; e.g., Janssen et al., 2004). Managing within and between role conflict is complicated because it is often bi- or multi-directional, and because workers differ in terms of which roles they prioritize and see as most salient and therefore influential (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2003). Many factors can contribute to work and nonwork role conflict, including role-specific demands and various demographic factors (Byron, 2005; Gutek et al., 1991; Matthews et al., 2012; Voydanoff, 1988). An implication is that the experience of work and nonwork role conflicts differs by person, underscoring again the need for consideration of individual differences (as discussed in Chapter 3). Despite the complexity, efforts to help workers avoid work and nonwork role conflicts are needed, given that such conflicts can negatively impact workers’ psychological and physical health in many ways (e.g., Allen & Armstrong, 2006; Greenhaus et al., 2006). Enhancement and Facilitation Although responding to role-related demands can indeed deplete resources, our involvements and achievements in different roles can also (sometimes concurrently) replenish or enrich our resources and improve our chances of success across role domains. Managing multiple role involvements, therefore, is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Occupying and participating in multiple roles (i.e., role accumulation; Sieber, 1974) may provide opportunities and mechanisms for building resources that can enhance, facilitate, or otherwise enrich our performance in other role domains (Chen & Powell, 2012; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Hanson et al., 2006; Wiese et al., 2010). Examples of this phenomenon abound and might include how participating in a musical ensemble can improve one’s focus in all roles, or how coaching a child’s sports team might improve one’s ability to manage subordinates at work. Even more simply, happiness experienced with a family member might help you stay upbeat at work. Another, less commonly discussed way that interrole facilitation works, is when occupying one role makes it possible for you to occupy or participate in another. This is often why people join professional organizations or students pursue education through particular institutions and degree programs, to facilitate access to and achievement of desired career-related roles and outcomes. Balance Related to the positive interrole dynamics concept of facilitation is the much-popularized notion of interrole balance. This positively framed form of interrole dynamic is defined in various ways, including as: the degree to which a person is equally involved and satisfied with their work and nonwork roles (Greenhaus et al., 2003); when a person is experiencing no/low conflict or interference between roles (Frone, 2003); and when there is stability among work and nonwork demands and the search for daily accomplishment and satisfaction (Reece et al., 2009). A more recent attempt at a comprehensive definition suggests that workers experience balance when they consider their emotional experiences, involvements, and effectiveness in certain roles to be favorable and in alignment with the value they attach to those roles (Casper et al., 2018, p. 18). An issue to consider regarding this phenomenon is that use of the “balance” label implies that there is some sort of end-state or condition that can be achieved, in which a worker has all the resources necessary to meet present demands across all of their life roles. Unfortunately, few people ever experience this type of cross-role, homeostatic condition. Instead, most workers are constantly juggling available resources to meet various competing role-related demands. The point here is that balancing of role demands and resources is an active and ongoing process, rather than a specific occurrence or event (e.g., Bacigalupe, 2002; Hall & Richter, 1988). Why Work and Nonwork Role Dynamics Matter Beyond providing fertile ground for interesting research, workers’ abilities to manage work and nonwork roles are critically important to maintaining WHSWB and the functioning of organizations and society in general. In this section, we explore several reasons why this is so. Person-Level Reasons As noted earlier, the roles we occupy can change how we think, feel, and behave. These effects also are not limited to one role, but accumulate and impact other roles. Consider military service members or police officers trained to be vigilant while working, who then may struggle with hyperawareness even in casual nonwork situations. Awareness of role-prescribed behaviors or mindsets that can affect workers across multiple life roles can help workers, and their families and friends to better manage role boundaries, role demands, and role-related resources. Work is just one major role domain in our lives. It can affect and be affected by our role-related experiences in all other nonwork roles. There is a delicate ecosystem in which each of us lives and it takes coordination among all roles for this ecosystem to function well. Balancing our various role-related demands and resources in this ecosystem allows our role involvements to facilitate and structure our social engagements and opportunities for goal achievement, meaningfulness, purpose, etc. Role engagements also grant us access to others who can help us to make sense of what is happening when our work and/or nonwork roles become ambiguous or otherwise difficult to manage. We process information, not just through our own minds, but also from those around us in the various roles we hold (e.g., social information processing and social comparison theory; Gerber et al., 2018; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). In addition, facilitating healthy management of work and nonwork roles increases workers’ opportunities to maintain a robust source of many essential resources such as affiliation with others, financial security, and a sense of meaning or purpose. Business and Organizational Reasons Role-related expectations, and intra- and interrole dynamics also have a major influence on worker productivity and performance. As noted earlier in this chapter, these role-related forces influence how workers think, feel, and behave when confronted with work-related demands and other stimuli. Early findings demonstrated that role-related conflicts are negatively associated with job performance, especially when role ambiguity is high (Fried et al., 1998; Fried & Tiegs, 1995). Additional research suggests that the effects of interrole interference or conflict may be mediated by negative effects on worker concentration (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2007). More recent research also shows that workers’ perception of family-related support from their supervisors is positively linked with job performance (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2016). Thus, understanding work and nonwork role dynamics is not just important to individual workers. Businesses and other organizations can also leverage the power of positive role dynamics to attract, develop, and retain workers. Consider that the process of recruiting applicants for open positions in organizations is really the selling of a role and its various facets, including its potential dynamics with other roles. Effective recruiting efforts help candidates develop a realistic sense of whether a role is likely to be a good fit for them or not (Uggerslev et al., 2012; Yu, 2014). Organizations can appeal to candidates by offering and emphasizing policies and benefits that support positive work and nonwork interrole dynamics (Casper & Buffardi, 2004; Cunningham, 2008; Honeycutt & Rosen, 1997). Such marketing requires more than reframing existing policies and procedures; it requires real effort to build and support an organizational culture that facilitates healthy management of work and nonwork roles. This might involve highlighting an organization’s commitment to flexible scheduling, telecommuting, and paid time off to care for dependants. These types of policies and practices really appeal to individuals who have complex nonwork lives to manage, such as parents and those who care for elderly parents or a disabled spouse or partner. After the period of recruitment and attraction, corresponding actual support from the organization can strengthen workers’ attachment to the organization (Casper & Harris, 2008) and yield positive health benefits for workers and cost savings for organizations (e.g., Jennings et al., 2016). Sometimes organizational leaders assume that single workers with no dependants and no nonwork commitments will be more likely to identify strongly with their work and therefore be the best performers. Instead, workers who are involved in multiple work and nonwork roles also tend to be more embedded in their communities and less likely to dramatically change course (and potentially turnover) than those who have no roots or likelihood of establishing roots (e.g., Fasbender et al., 2019; Porter et al., 2019). Given these logical extensions of role-related theory and research, organizations can benefit from facilitating healthy management of work and nonwork roles as a way of increasing more generalizable social capital (Direnzo et al., 2015; Hauser et al., 2015) and strengthening the connection between workers and their communities. Broader Societal Reasons There are other societal benefits in addition to the gains in social capital and general community involvement that are possible with healthier management of work and nonwork role dynamics. Workers’ abilities to managing work and nonwork life roles are closely linked to decisions they make regarding where to live, work, and play. These decisions, in turn, affect the structure of geographic work areas, residential areas, schooling zones, etc. This has not been a major area of study within OHP yet, but the COVID-19 pandemic reminded many workers and organizations that as work roles change, so do nonwork roles and societal level functioning (and vice versa). Another societal reason to understand work and nonwork role dynamics better pertains to issues of fairness, equity, and inclusion. Failing to address work and nonwork role dynamics can bias organizations and societal institutions against workers who simultaneously manage complex work and nonwork demands (e.g., child and adult dependants, service commitments, religious involvements, education, health and medical care). Such bias can prevent organizations from making real advancements toward diversity and inclusion. Methodological Considerations and Practical Recommendations There are many methodological techniques employed by OHP professionals who research and intervene to improve workers’ abilities to manage work and nonwork role dynamics. As with all WHSWB challenges explored in this book, it is important to begin with good information or data, which can be gathered using a variety of measurement approaches. Working from this information, it is possible to take steps to improve work and nonwork role dynamics at the individual, work group, leader, and organizational level. We explore a variety of such strategies in this section. Measuring and Monitoring Work and Nonwork Role Dynamics Work and nonwork role dynamics are inherently personal, limiting our measurement and evaluation options to self-reported methods of quantifying and qualifying workers’ and significant others’ perceptions of extent to which role dynamics are positive, negative, facilitating/enhancing, conflicting, etc. For this reason, most research and evaluation efforts in this area have leveraged surveys and diary studies to gather data (e.g., Hewett et al., 2017; Kempen et al., 2019). There are also some situations in which interviews can be particularly valuable (e.g., Ford & Collinson, 2011). Finally, there may be some value in observational methods with the goal is high-level surveillance or monitoring of trends regarding, for instance, personal time and effort investment in specific role domains (e.g., Galizzi et al., 2010). Intervening to Improve Work and Nonwork Role Dynamics Improving workers’ abilities to manage their own work and nonwork role dynamics is an important step toward addressing related WHSWB concerns. As highlighted throughout this chapter, however, pertinent theories and research suggest that such individual-level efforts are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. It is also, therefore, necessary to address role dynamics at the group, leader, and organization level. Strategies for Individuals Interventions can help workers develop and implement strategies for managing work and nonwork roles in a way that fits with personal and family needs, values, and available resources. Individual level interventions can also help workers to identify critical resources needed to meet role-related demands, and to develop strategies for addressing these needs. Because work and nonwork role-related decisions have ripple effects that extend beyond the worker, there is also value in translating strong OHP research about work and nonwork role-related decision making (e.g., Shockley & Allen, 2015) into interventions designed to help workers develop more realistic and accurate concepts of how the role-related choices they make are likely to create facilitation or create conflict. This type of intervention would also necessarily involve helping people understand who they are (in terms of role-related identity salience), what they value, and what the significant others in their lives also value and need. Interventions along these lines might focus on helping people identify and understand their values and priorities, and make authentic career, family, education, and service role-related decisions that are in alignment with these attributes. It is important to teach workers that their own management of role dynamics is influenced by other people in their lives. As an example, Hahn and Dormann (2013) found that workers’ detachment is linked to their partners’ preferences for segmentation between work and nonwork roles, and ultimately to workers’ own life satisfaction. All of these relationships were also affected by the presence or absence of children in the home. As Greenhaus and Callanan (2020) note, “Work-related decisions... that are informed by nonwork considerations... can help employees experience greater balance in life because a broader range of values or needs is taken into account than if the decision had been based exclusively on work-related factors” (p. 478). This is closely aligned with the notion of workers’ developing characteristic boundary management styles, which can be seen as “a competency for personal and life effectiveness” (Kossek, 2016, p. 259). More insightful recommendations along these lines are presented in Greenhaus and Powell (2017). Frequent interrole transitions increase the potential for blurring or lack of clarity to emerge in roles. Research suggests that maintaining some sense of role boundaries and segmentation between roles is associated with less work-family conflict (Kossek et al., 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010) and more work-family balance (e.g., Li et al., 2013). Workers may benefit from interventions that teach practical strategies for managing interruptions across and transitions between role domains, such as through more controlled use of communications-related technology (e.g., Berkowsky, 2013; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Finally, workers struggling to manage competing work and nonwork role-related demands may also benefit from interventions that facilitate access to the necessary resources to meet those demands. We need look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic to understand that a major nonwork demand with direct work-related consequences is how to care for children while also being a working parent. Needed resources here might include flexibility in scheduling work meetings and delivering completed work, and resources to support child care. This simple example illustrates how a resource-based perspective can be leveraged to improve workers’ ability to manage interrole dynamics. Strategies for Groups, Leaders, and Organizations Although work and nonwork role dynamics are inherently personal, such dynamics are not solely governed by person-level forces. There are several ways in which interventions designed for working groups, leaders, and broader organizations can be helpful in this area of OHP practice. Consider that for many workers, the work domain is less permeable than and therefore less likely to be impacted by demands and influences from other nonwork roles. This, combined with the consistent strength and intensity of demands most workers experience in their work roles, grants these roles major influence over WHSWB. Simply put, it is easier to protect and promote WHSWB when work role demands and resources are well-aligned. In practice, this means that organizations must work toward building and sustaining a healthy work-life cultures (Foucreault et al., 2018). As outlined with a focus on work and family role domains by Thompson et al. (1999), such a culture is likely to be reflected in workers’ perceptions of organizational time expectations, consequences linked to use of work-life programs, and managerial support for managing family/life responsibilities. In a general sense, interventions can be designed to address all three of these perceptions with initiatives operating at the group, leader, and organizational levels. Indeed, most role dynamics intervention efforts that target groups, leaders, and organizations have focused on improving the supportiveness of organizational supervision (e.g., Lapierre & Allen, 2006), so that supervisors demonstrate, encourage, and facilitate use of an organization’s policies and resources to support work and nonwork role management (e.g., paid leave for family care, flexible scheduling). The logic behind these types of policies and this kind of flexibility, is that such support allows workers to address nonwork demands without feeling like they are being penalized at work for doing so. It is one thing for an organization to offer flexibility to workers, but if workers do not feel encouraged and supported to use that flexibility, it might as well not exist. Similarly, if workers do not perceive that they actually have control to exercise this flexibility, then additional demands may be perceived (as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7) and negative health and well-being related consequences may develop (e.g., Kossek et al., 2006). A number of theoretically and empirically derived intervention efforts have been undertaken to address these points (for a helpful summary and discussion, see Kossek et al., 2014). Specifically, workers’ control over work time and approach to work has been shown to improve perceptions of schedule control and reduce work-family conflict, among other benefits (Hill et al., 2013; Moen et al., 2011). It has also been shown that FSSB can be trained and as a result decrease workers’ work-family conflict and improve a variety of health and well-being outcomes associated with positive work and nonwork role dynamics (Crain et al., 2014; Hammer et al., 2009). Building on these and other studies, a more comprehensive approach to improving workers’ management of work and nonwork role demands by increasing work scheduling control and supervisor support for positive work and nonwork role dynamics has been developed and tested as the Support-Transform-Achieve-Results (STAR) intervention. This intervention has been strongly tested in a variety of settings and the results indicate many positive effects, including reductions in worker stress and burnout, and improvements in various indicators of worker well-being (e.g., Kossek et al., 2019; Moen et al., 2016). Notably, it has also been shown that this intervention can yield these positive WHSWB-related impacts without negatively impacting worker performance (Bray et al., 2018). Helpful resources associated with the preceding interventions are available for direct access through the Work, Family & Health Network (https://workfamilyhealthnetwork.org/toolkits-achieve-workplace-change). There are a variety of ways the elements to the preceding intervention frameworks can be applied in organizational settings. One method might involve training and engaging supervisors to model healthy work and nonwork role management behaviors. Such training might involve helping supervisors, managers, and other leaders to recalibrate what they see as commitment, work ethic, and employee engagement so that they are more realistic when evaluating subordinates and colleagues. A good example of this is seen in the work of Koch and Binnewies (2015), which showed that supervisors who demonstrated work-home segmentation were perceived as supportive role models and their subordinate workers reported more work and nonwork role segmentation of their own and less exhaustion and disengagement. Similarly, supervisors who set clear boundaries to keep work separate from nonwork life signal organization-level consideration for workers’ personal nonwork lives and needs (e.g., Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Interventions related to the preceding concepts have empowered some workers and minimized the extent to which they experience conflictbetween work and nonwork roles. We want to emphasize, however that many of these types of group, leader, and organization-level interventions are still focused on changing perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors ultimately at the level of individual workers. We are hopeful that more organizations will seriously consider interventions that involve actual redesign to work roles and their associated demands to optimize workers’ access to essential resources and minimize the likelihood of work-related demands spilling over into or interrupting workers’ nonwork role engagements. This approach to intervention does not place the demand for managing work and nonwork role demands solely on workers, but rather involves the organization and its leadership in making changes to the way work is assigned, expectations are managed, and communications are controlled. An example of work along these lines is found in Stanko and Beckman (2015), who demonstrated the effectiveness of organization-level and technology-based efforts to improve workers’ boundary control abilities and attentional focus. Evaluating Interventions Addressing Work and Nonwork Role Dynamics Methods and strategies for evaluating interventions in this domain do not differ much from those used in studying many other OHP-related phenomena. The material we presented in Chapter 2 of this book regarding evaluating OHP interventions can, therefore, be helpful when evaluating work and nonwork role dynamic interventions. It is important, however, to remember that interventions addressing work and nonwork role dynamics are ultimately aimed at changing qualities (perceived and actual) of workers’ intra- and inter-role experiences. For this reason, most evaluation methods will necessarily involve data gathered through subjective self-reports. Inferences based on such data can be strengthened by designing evaluations that also gather corresponding information from spouses, significant others, and dependants in the nonwork domain, and coworkers and supervisors in the work domain. The most common methods for gathering such data efficiently include surveys, diary studies, and interviews. We have cited a number of strong examples of interventions that demonstrate these and other recommended evaluation techniques throughout this chapter, especially earlier in this section. Concluding Thoughts and Reality Check Work and nonwork role dynamics is an area of OHP research and practice for which the boundaries (ironic word choice, we know) are not entirely clear or strong. There is substantial overlap among the essential topics discussed in this chapter and in other chapters of this book. This should make sense, given that roles are the context in which all of these phenomena occur. Acknowledging these areas of overlap and considering the material presented in this chapter, it is easy to understand how WHSWB can be protected and promoted, and how workers will work better and be more committed and engaged in their work organizations, when they are encouraged and supported to also engage in healthy work and nonwork role engagements. Achieving healthy work and nonwork role dynamics is increasingly difficult, as technologies and norms combine to make work roles continuously salient and accessible. Workers need strategies, opportunities, and organizational support to actively and effectively manage their work and nonwork role demands and resources. We are hopeful that increased understanding of these matters and our shared global experiences with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will help workers and organizations work together to reimagine what positive work and nonwork role dynamics are.